During last week’s Democratic debate, Vermont Sen. Bernie
Sanders said the United States should model its social policies on Sweden, Norway and Denmark —
countries that provide free health care, free college and paid family leave.

But by saying he’d vote to legalize marijuana, Sanders made it
much harder to convince Americans to adopt these programs.

Swedish history shows why.

In the 1970s, Sweden did what we’re doing now: told police to
ignore drug possession and only pursue serious crime. But drug abuse soared, so
the country reversed course. Today, Sweden and its neighbors have some of the
world’s toughest drug laws, including tough marijuana laws.

This doesn’t mean jailing drug users. Sweden uses the threat of
jail to get substance abusers into treatment, and because crime is mostly caused by
substance abuse, this policy prevents crime — so well that over the past decade
the country has closed four prisons.

Tough marijuana laws also help keep Swedish socialism
affordable, and that’s why supporting legalization is a problem for Sanders.
People already worry about what his programs would cost.

For example, a Rand Corporation report says California spends
$110 million yearly on schizophrenia hospitalizations
caused by marijuana; for the whole U.S., that’s over $1 billion per year.
Marijuana also causes addiction and injuries from auto accidents, which are
expensive problems to treat.

How can Sanders ask America to pay for free health care if he’s
promoting a marijuana policy that would make health care more expensive?

Sanders wants the U.S. to require paid family leave and a high
minimum wage. But if at the same time we legalize a drug that causes poor work
performance, it could bankrupt businesses.

A University of Maryland study found
that college students who used marijuana, even occasionally, studied less,
skipped more classes, earned lower grades and were less likely to graduate.
How can Sanders ask America to pay for free college,
and then promote a drug policy that leads students to waste the experience?

Sanders deserves credit for promoting policies that would give
American families the same financial security citizens in other rich countries
enjoy. The Scandinavian programs he supports — free health care, free college,
a living wage, good pensions and family leave — would greatly benefit most
Americans.

However, it’s hard to take seriously someone who would also
increase the cost of these programs unnecessarily. By endorsing
marijuana legalization, Bernie Sanders has made himself a less convincing
salesman for the ideas he cares about most.

Dr. Ed Gogek of Prescott is an addiction psychiatrist and author
of "Marijuana Debunked: A handbook for parents, pundits and politicians
who want to know the case against legalization."

Addiction
hijacks the brain. Families dealing with addicted loved ones know this.
Research shows that95 percent of people suffering
from substance use disordersdo not think that
they have a problem or need treatment. Few addicts enter treatment without
meaningful coercion, most often from families or the criminal justice system.

The challenge in responding to
this seemingly simple question about coerced treatment is in the details.
Surely not everyone who is addicted to drugs should be committed to treatment.
The opposite is also true. Some addicts should be committed to treatment
against their will. Not all coercion is commitment and not all commitment has
the force of law.

Two good examples of effective coercion that
overcome addiction areHOPE Probationand the state-basedPhysician Health Programs, both of which are enforced by intensive random monitoring and permit
no use of alcohol or other drugs. While these two programs share many similar
features, they deal with very different populations of serious substance users:
one with convicted felons on probation and the other with

physicians.
Both are voluntary in the sense that individuals can choose to not abide by the
program requirements, but in both cases the consequences may be serious. For
probationers in HOPE, the risk of failing is prison and for physicians in
P.H.P., it is the loss of a medical license. Both programs produce excellent
outcomes for most participants.

Families faced with addiction
often reluctantly, and only after many failures, use “tough love” to promote
treatment and recovery while insisting that their addicted loved ones be
drug-free. Families usually have to use a significant measure of coercion not
only to get addicts into treatment but also to keep them there and to prevent
relapse upon discharge.

As a psychiatrist specializing
in the treatment of addiction, I am struck by the stark contrast between
addicted people who are using alcohol and other drugs actively and those who
are in stable recovery. In the process of recovery there is a transition from
near-universal denial of problems and rejection of treatment to gratitude for
and acceptance of the coercion that got them on that path. The addict’s will is
different when using drugs and when in recovery.

Recovery from addiction may or
may not involve treatment. It takes years of hard work – usually with the
sustained support of recovery communities. Because of the denial that
characterizes the cunning, baffling and powerful disease of addiction, recovery
often starts with substantial coercion.

Endorsement

"All treatment centres in B.C. should get involved and support the Drug Prevention Network. As one collective voice we need to send the message that treatment works and it saves lives. There are recovery houses, treatment centers, private, government funded, long term, short term, detox, therapeutic communities etc. Let's help support prevention and help educate the public."